Letters To Ed :-)

"We've been duped by the Republicans. Kentucky Sen. and minority leader Mitch McConnell in a news conference one day after the election, stated that the single and sole goal of the GOP over the next two years is: to make Barack Obama a single term president. What an arrogant and obnoxious goal and statement. There agenda before the election was to get votes by promising that there first goals were jobs, the economy and health care reform. It seems their goal is to grab power, not to do things for the people that are in need of jobs and or unemployment pay, health care for those that don't have it, and the people losing their homes. This is the same party that wanted the auto plants and their suppliers to go out of business. We are just coming back from what they did to this country, and now we have them back to do the same things to our country again. What a mess the next two years is going to bring to this country. Talk about partisanship." Carl D. Leow Rogers Cit

jaxspp

amos57usa

jax...I'm quite sure they didn't use the nonsense phrase "believe in". Every politician should be asked if he understands evolution and to explain the processes of human origins. Walker was afraid to answer. This son-of-a baptist right wing nut didn't even get his bachelor's degree. The Koch brothers will try to buy him the presidency.

jaxspp

jaxspp

257,000 jobs created in January, 59 straight months of jobs growth. If President Obama was white they would be talking about him in terms of one of America's greatest presidents. Unfortunately conservatives can only see him through their racist smoke colored glasses. Thank you, President Obama, for a job well done.

jaxspp

jaxspp

The GOP clown car has started its engine. Paul, Cruz and Rubio have gone to kiss the Koch Brother's rears, Jindal went overseas and made such a fool of himself about no-go zones even Fox apologized. By the way, the White House stopped calling them Fox News, they just call them Fox. Fat Christie is forming a PAC, and even Palin (please, please) is giving hints. This is going to be the funniest campaign ever.

jaxspp

Obviously I don't watch MSNBC and I don't think I've ever used them as a reference. And Bush's numbers are bad by any standard and any measurement. As you have stated many many times, the economy needs to create 200000 jobs a month just to keep up with people entering it. To say "employment is full, we don't need to create more jobs" is contradicting the point you make every time I post Obama's numbers.

normanlake

Freeman

That changes things doesn't it? Jimmy's rate of return is higher but he only made $8.00 while Johnny made $60.00.

Let's move little further. The economy under G.W. Bush created like 1.2 million jobs in an economy that was operating at near full employment, (participation rates). So his numbers, on their face look bad, OUT OF CONTEXT.

The current economy has crated nearly 11 million jobs but the actual rate of employment has dropped consistently over his term(s). It's all about context.

Freeman

Freeman

"..Raw numbers, lacking context and not adjusted for inflation or the size of the economy, are inherently misleading. While there are ways to look at the increase in debt over time that might bolster Priebus’s point, that is not how he chose to defend it. Instead, he was relying on raw dollar figures, which really do not tell you much. And just because Obama used this method in a campaign setting, that’s not an excuse for Republicans to use it, too..."

Freeman

I am not trying to be recalcitrant, I'm trying to encourage you, and others, to examine things more deeply.

If you do nothing but listen to FOX on the right and MSNBC on the left, you are in big trouble. There are many conservative and liberals who trend toward the middle in their analysis and should really be listened to.

Freeman

"...One alternative method looks at the dollar amount of the debt increase divided by the dollar amount of GDP at the end of each term. Obama’s numbers for the debt and GDP are only through Sept. 30, 2014, and thus should be considered a temporary figure, as an improving economy might boost the GDP and thus improve his ratio. At current trends, however, it is likely that Obama’s performance would be the worst among recent presidents, according to this calculation. (He would still trail Roosevelt and Wilson among presidents in the last hundred years.).."

Calling someone fact free because you don't understand the facts is kind of childish jaxspp.

Freeman

Ratio of debt to GDP -

"But measuring percentage changes in the debt/GDP ratio over time can be misleading because the GDP number is affected by the state of the economy, especially if the president suffers through a recession at the start of their term. Most recent presidents experienced robust annual GDP growth rates, compared with the flat line of Obama’s first years, which means the numerator in their calculation of GDP percentage grew much faster than the one used for Obama..."

Freeman

“The problem is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents. Number 43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.”